Topic: Guns - page 29. (Read 22194 times)

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

Your inherent human right to self-defense is infringed, and you are effectively rendered defenseless against violent criminals. That is NOT acceptable, no matter where you live.

Woah guys, calm down. I'm not here to start a war, but to offer a different perspective.


And your thoughts and feelings are irrelevant to the people killed by firearms each and every day. I mean, I know our "gun culture" is really different than yours, and it's like arguing what is the best religion between christians and muslims. It's not going to give anything except a stupid war.


And these laws work. It's not perfect, we don't live in a perfect world, but the gun control laws have an effect. I would say that gun control law needs a well-trained and efficient police force to make a visible effect on the society. If the police force was lazy and corrupted, maybe having no gun control could be better. But with a competent police force, I think "normal" citizen shoud limit their role to being only an observer of crime, and call the police force ASAP when they witness something.

Yeah, I know we permit firearms, but they are heavily controlled. But we're having a national conflict on that right now. Our provincial government is currently suing the Canadian governement about the gun registry, it's a real shitfest.


An everyday normal guy if you prefer.


No, for "paid people", I meant criminals like hitmans or member of a criminal gang. Those type of guys have money on the line when they attempt homicide (like for drug market control, etc). These guys are dangerous and that's why if you want a good gun control, you need an effective police force to fight against those gangs.

Sure, if you have a shitty police force in the US, the situation is different and I can understand the need of owning a gun. Still, I think it could be better to invest in a police force that's efficient and trusted by the citizens than letting those citizens arms themselves to do the police job.


Dude, I live here and that's my reality. Gun-related crime are rare...really rare. Look:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm


My French Canadian pacifist opinion is backed by the French Canadian situation. But sure, maybe I misunderstand the US situation and their citizens needs guns because they don't feel safe in their country.

That would certainly help bring back the "friendly neighborhood police officer"

Indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_%28Common_Law%29

Law enforcement officers should only be able to write reports, investigate crimes, and take suspects into custody. Especially since SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled LEOs have no duty to protect anyone and cannot be held liable for practically any failure to do anything. Everyone has the right, and responsibility to defend themselves and others (even if that's illegal in criminal utopias like NYC, DC, Chicago, NJ, Hawaii, major metro areas in California, and most of the rest of the world). If LEOs need the option of lethal force, there would be no shortage of assistance around, unless they go to bum fuck egypt without requesting the help of citizens.

I giggled like child 

I think guns should only be taken away from cops and require everyone else to be armed.

This is nothing but circular logic and is a complete fallacy. IE guns are dangerous to own because guns are dangerous. Additionally Canada has some of the most nonsensical gun control laws on earth, and BTW your country is not a "no-firearms" country.


WTF is a "normal" citizen? Regular people get killed all the time for little to nothing. As far as "only the paid people" to deal with it, I assume you mean police. First of all ask the murderer if they don't mind waiting while the police drive to your location, additionally in the USA the police are nothing more than a state sponsored gang, I wouldn't even WANT to call them even if my life was in danger. There is a very long list of victims further victimized by police arriving after the fact when they wanted nothing but help.


Most of this is simply your opinion with no backing in reality. It only takes a half a second to lift and point a gun if it is near by and someone breaks down your door. In reality you would have PLENTY of time to get your firearm if you were in your home and it is loaded near by. Not every criminal is a Navy Seal, believe it or not a lot of them are moronic animals that don't think more than 2 seconds ahead (shocking I know). As far as guns being a status symbol, as any gun owner knows you don't parade around with your gun as it is your responsibility if it is stolen. Having a gun as a "social status" symbol is pointless. This is nothing but a cluster of your unbacked French Canadian pacifist opinions. If you want to be unarmed fine, but I find it disgusting that you ask other people to put themselves at risk so you can give yourself the illusion of safety.

Your thoughts (and feelings) are irrelevant to all the people saved by firearms each and every day:

https://ixquick.com/do/search?query=11+year+old+shoot+burglar&cat=web&pl=chrome&language=english

FUD^

Criminals require defenseless victims, to have an absolute guarantee of success. It's really as simple as that.

Disgustingly, governments, even in the U.S., protect criminals by disarming their victims for them and calling it 'gun control' when all it controls/enables is innocents' victimization.

Living in a "no-firearms" country, I doubt of the usefulness of having open access to guns. I think it creates a placebo effect of security. You feel more secure, but the source of the danger is the gun. The more the gun is near you, the more dangerous it is. Sure, if you control the gun, you are safe when you're behind. But you can make a bad manipulation(shoot yourself in the foot for example), or simply be faced to another gun, controlled by somebody else and be in the most dangerous place you can be, in front of a gun.

Normal citizens are rarely the target of the guns. Shooting somebody is a high-risk situation for your future, and have a high cost associated to it. Sane people, criminals or not, are not going to shoot a gun carelessly. Usually, people who shoot other people are stupid, being paid for it, in a rage moment or clumsy. If you educate your citizens well, you can reduce the amount of stupid and clumsy people. You will probably help them manage their emotions, and reduce the full-rage-on moment. You will have only the paid people to deal with. And you don't pay to kill random people.

Also, most of the killing is usually made by deception or surprise. Why? Because the guy you want to shoot could have a gun! You don't want him to have time to ready his gun and position himself in a position he can defend.

Overall, I really think the gun market is a sugar pill market where you pay thousand of dollars to feel better. The situations where:
-Your life is in danger
-You have the time to ready your gun
-You absolutely need to kill the other guy or you could lose your life
these are pretty rare where humans live generally. So, as a tool, guns are not that useful because their usefulness is only in precise and specific situations that rarely or never happen.

The gun has more value in being a placebo and for defining social status(like cars or clothes can be used to) than being a really useful tool.

You're wrong there, not only is using SR for firearms not common its extremely rare and highly unlikely to see the product actually delivered to you without a warrant for your arrest.    The common method of acquiring firearms illicitly is listed below.

There is also no inherent thing as an "illegal firearm" only a firearm device that a government may or may not have some regulation thereof, I'm afraid the Brady campaign and Hillary Clinton has clouded the language you use to describe this issue.  Firearms are firearms, neither legal or illegal.  Kind of like saying "illegal cars," illegals guns is a facetious statement used by the anti-gun lobby, if it is a car or not, the legal status has nothing to with how they are acquired.  Buying it over SR might be illegal (then again, maybe not if they go through their FFL, how do you know?).  Firearms are shipped by mail to FFL licens holders all the time and prior to the 1960's mere citizens could mail order firearms to their door.  

What is common is mister "thug for life with a felony" gets his girlfriend to buy the guns for him.  

WRT to OP, I want you to make illegal the physical process of projecting a piece of lead propelled at great force down a metal tube.  After you have altered the laws of physics to make this happen at that time you might be able to make firearms "illegal" in the only meaningful way possible.  Until that time mankind will manufacturer and create firearms to varying degrees of sophistication with the most basic of metal shop machinery and a little bit of chemistry.  

Thanks all. I'll be back later with some anti-NRA arguments I find which make sense to me 

I am a proud gun owner, and have multiple firearms which I have acquired legally according to the Federal laws of the US, and my State laws. I completely understand your point of view, and am glad you are going about this in a respectful manner. I get sick and tired of people on both sides of the augment that want to shove their opinion down someone else's throat. Then when it comes for them to listen to the opposing individuals side of the argument, they just blow them off.

Indeed, there are some regulations for this sort of thing. For my State, I can walk into a licensed firearm dealer, and walk out the door with a firearm in less then ten minutes. There is a form you have to fill out which includes where you live, criminal history, mental history, etc. After filling out this form, the dealer will call the ATF to preform a NICS on you. The dealer will talk on the phone with the ATF to make sure you aren't a felon (or have a history), to make sure you don't have a history of mental issues, you aren't taking any drugs for anything, check your citizenship, and a bunch of stuff.

If I were to purchase a fully automatic firearm, suppressor, or some other high grade stuff, there is even more back round checks they will do with some sort of waiting period involved. And you usually have to be in military/law enforcement to be applicable.

However with all of these laws, it doesn't prevent me from giving a firearm to a criminal (3rd party sale). A criminal can get a gun from me, someone else, or even get them imported from Mexico via blackmarket means. One of the methods that I am aware of, and it's rather simple, is via TOR. You can get to the Silk Road, and purchase illegal firearms with Bitcoins. This method is pretty common, and easy for a criminal who can't get their firearms by legal means.

With that being said, I don't believe banning firearms is in the interest of the people. This will only prevent law abiding citizens from acquire firearms, and leaving criminals with firearms. I live in a rural area, so the Police response time to my house is a little over ten minutes. This gives ample amount of time for criminals to enter my home, rape/murder my family, steal what they want, and maybe burn my house down. In this situation, I'd much rather be holding my rifle then my cellphone. I am all for firearms, and would recommend every law abiding American to have at least one. But not just owning a firearm, but with wisdom to use them. A firearm is useless unless you properly know how to use it.

But that's just my two cents. I hope I didn't step on any toes, and presented my opinion in a logical manner. Sorry if it's a long read...

(Just so I don't confuse anyone and have the ATF/FBI raid my house tomorrow, I have never sold/traded/or transferred a firearm to anyone, criminal or not.)

I carry most every day, but i can understand your uneasiness. Think about this.
To carry has cost me about $1200 in classes and equipment. It took about 4 months of waiting, I had to submit multiple sets of fingerprints to the FBI and states of Wisconsin and Utah. I had background checks for criminality, mental illness, drug abuse, etc.. And each handgun I buy involves another raft of paperwork
Now, it is not sensible to think that I went through all that so I could murder someone. Indeed, IMO you are safer when you see someone carrying nearby.  
Pepper-spray or mace or stun guns would never do in a gunfight. Using anything like that is a good way to get killed. As counterintuitive as it is, if everyone has a gun, peace breaks out. I saw it myself in Croatia during the war. The Serbs were slaughtering the Croats until the guns showed up. Suddenly they did not want to fight.

Criminals can get their guns practically immediately, so you'd have to ask them to wait to victimize you. Good luck with that. Instant background check should be the maximum standard, and even then, it's used to deny the most important right of all of those whom tyrants hate, especially if they are completely innocent.


If only there was irrefutable, conclusive, or even persuasive evidence that mandatory training reduced accidents. Like the above, it is used to deny the most important right of all of those whom tyrants hate.

While "other non-firearm self-defense methods work pretty well" in rather limited circumstances, the firearm is the MOST effective self-defense tool, as defined by SCOTUS, history, peer-reviewed research, government statistics, and plain old common sense. The mere display of a firearm is most often what stops criminals in their tracks; you rarely ever have to shoot them.

One law which has had good effect on reducing firearm crimes is the mandatory sentencing guidelines for felonies committed with a firearm.  These laws have many names but the idea is simple.  If someone is arrested in the commission of a felony while in the possession of a firearm there is a mandatory sentence of 10 years.

This makes the job of prosecution easier due to the fact judges tend to plea bargain cases down and throw out charges.  Once they can prove you had a firearm at the time of the crime, you are done.

In places where this was implemented, firearm felonies dropped quite a bit.

I also don't believe in waiting periods.  I believe the "instant check" system is more effective in preventing criminals from obtaining firearms through legal channels.  This does not stop them from stealing them but it does protect the rights of law abiding citizens during the purchase process.

Would that be legal?  I thought that the constitution prevents that kind of restriction.  If not, would it be legal to require insurance for a gun like you are required to have insurance for a car?

It's too late now for any restriction to have any effect on the crime statistics. At least in the USA and neighboring countries. There are simply too many guns floating around.
You can only reduce the number of accidents, for example with a mandantory gun safety training.

Mmm... this one makes a lot of sense and is very concise.


Is anyone/everyone opposed to delays? Like needing to apply for a gun then waiting for a day. What harm does that do?

One thing to remember as well is that in the United States we do not have access to the same firearms and other weapons as the military.  The use of civilian firearms in an insurrection would rely on a massive number of people to offset the advantages of a profession military.

The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights is as a hedge against the abuse of power by a centralized political power structure.  When the form of government we have was designed two groups "pro-federal" and "anti-federal" put their own ideas in.  As a result we are supposed to have a balance of political power between the local, state, and federal governments.  This prevents too much power from concentrating in any one place and allows the smaller groups to be heard and have decision making power.

IMHO the U.S. Federal Government is far too large in scale and political power at this point in history.  We really should devolve the structure back down to a more decentralized system again for many reasons but the best of all is to reduce the chance for abuse of power.